July 3, 2024 • 58 mins
Send us a text and let us know what you think about the episode!
What happens when a group of seasoned criminals meticulously plans one of the most audacious heists in American history? Join us as we recount the daring Great Brinks Robbery of January 17, 1950, a night when a crew of masked and disguised thieves managed to infiltrate the heavily fortified Brinks Armored Car Depot in Boston, making off with $2.7 million in cash, coins, checks, and money orders. This episode tracks the incredible precision of the robbers, who left the crime scene spotless, and the ensuing all-out investigation by the FBI and Boston Police, capturing the public's imagination and leading to a wave of tips and theories.
Get to know the key players behind the heist, such as Joseph James O'Keefe and Stanley Albert Gusciora, whose criminal backgrounds and suspicious activities drew intense scrutiny from investigators. We also explore the internal conflicts and legal battles that plagued the Brinks crew, including Pino's fight against deportation and O'Keefe's escalating confrontations with fellow gang members. Listen in to uncover the intricate connections within Boston's criminal underworld and the relentless pursuit by authorities to solve the case of the century. This is a gripping narrative you won't want to miss.
Get to know the key players behind the heist, such as Joseph James O'Keefe and Stanley Albert Gusciora, whose criminal backgrounds and suspicious activities drew intense scrutiny from investigators. We also explore the internal conflicts and legal battles that plagued the Brinks crew, including Pino's fight against deportation and O'Keefe's escalating confrontations with fellow gang members. Listen in to uncover the intricate connections within Boston's criminal underworld and the relentless pursuit by authorities to solve the case of the century. This is a gripping narrative you won't want to miss.
Thanks for being a loyal Crime Connoisseur! Enjoy your free 30-Day Audible Trial Membership
Discover your dog's DNA with a simple cheek swab for their genetic testing.
BoxDog and BoxCat are premium customizable subscription boxes for dogs and cats.
Thanks for being a loyal Crime Connoisseur! Enjoy your free 30-Day Audible Trial Membership
Your cat deserves better. Have fresh, human-grade meals for your cat straight to your door each month.
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/crimeconnoisseurs
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome back crime connoisseurs to another
thrilling case where we diveinto some of the most notorious
crimes and unsolved mysteries inhistory.
Today we're going back to 1950,a year marked by what was
dubbed the crime of the centuryin Boston, massachusetts.
This audacious heist was notonly meticulously planned, but
(00:24):
also executed with militaryprecision.
Join me as we unravel thedetails of this infamous crime,
the characters involved and theaftermath that shocked the
nation.
This is the case of the GreatBrinks robbery.
It was a cold, crisp evening onJanuary 17, 1950.
(01:21):
The streets of Boston wereblanketed in snow as the
bustling city began to wind downfor the night, but in the
shadows, a group of men weregearing up for what would become
one of the most infamous heistsin American history.
The Brinks Armored Car Depot,located at 165 Prince Street in
(01:44):
the north end of Boston, was afortress of security boasting
thick walls, steel doors andstate-of-the-art alarm systems.
This made it a prime target fora crew of seasoned criminals
who had been meticulouslyplanning the heist for over two
years.
On the night of the robbery,the crew entered the Brinks
(02:08):
Depot shortly after 7 pm,donning navy peacoats,
chauffeur's caps, rubberHalloween masks and gloves to
disguise themselves and avoidleaving fingerprints.
With precision and coordination, they used duplicate key to
gain access to the depot.
(02:28):
Once inside, they overpoweredand bound five employees at
gunpoint.
They moved swiftly and silently, overpowering the five
employees who were occupiedpreparing money for shipment.
The crew tied up the employees,taped their mouths shut and
(02:49):
then proceeded to fill theirloot bags with cash, coins,
checks and money orders.
The robbers did little talking.
They moved with a precisionthat suggested the crime had
been carefully planned andrehearsed in the preceding
months.
Somehow the crew had opened atleast three, possibly four,
(03:11):
locked doors to gain entrance tothe second floor of Brinks,
where the five employees werecompleting their nightly duties
of checking and storing themoney collected from Brinks
customers.
That day, all five employees hadbeen forced at gunpoint to lie
face down on the floor.
Their hands were tied behindtheir backs and adhesive tape
(03:34):
was placed over their mouths.
During this time, one of theemployees had lost his glasses.
They later could not be foundon the Brink' premises.
A buzzer sounded as the lootwas being placed in bags and
stacked between the second andthird doors leading to the
Prince Street entrance.
(03:54):
The robbers removed theadhesive tape from the mouth of
one of the employees and learnedthat the buzzer signified that
someone wanted to enter thevault area.
The person ringing the buzzerwas a garage attendant.
Two of the crew members movedtoward the door to capture him,
but seeing the garage attendantwalk away, seemingly unaware of
(04:18):
the robbery was being committed,they did not pursue him.
The entire operation tookapproximately 30 minutes.
To further cover their tracks,the crew carefully wiped down
the premises to remove anyfingerprints and left with
minimal trace evidence.
The crew made off with $2.7million in total, a staggering
(04:44):
sum in 1950, equivalent tonearly $30 million today.
The haul included $1.2 millionin cash and the rest in
securities.
They filled 14 canvas bags withcash, coins, checks and money
orders for a total weight ofmore than half a ton, making
(05:07):
this the largest robbery in UShistory.
At the time, as the robberssped from the scene, a Brinks
employee called the BostonPolice Department.
Minutes later, police arrivedat Brinks Building and special
agents with the FBI quicklyjoined in the investigation.
(05:29):
At the beginning of theinvestigation, the investigators
had very few facts.
From the interviews with thefive employees whom the
criminals had confronted, it waslearned that between five and
seven robbers had entered thebuilding.
All of them wore navy-typepeacoats, gloves and chauffeur's
caps.
Each robber's face wascompletely concealed behind a
(05:53):
Halloween-type mask.
According to the FBI, one ofthe robbers wore crepe-soled
shoes to muffle their footstepsand the others wore rubbers.
In addition to the generaldescriptions from the Brinks
employees, the investigatorsobtained several pieces of
physical evidence.
(06:13):
The rope and adhesive tape usedto bind and gag the employees,
and a chauffeur's cap that oneof the robbers had worn was left
at the crime scene.
The FBI also learned that fourrevolvers had been taken by the
group.
The descriptions and serialnumbers of the guns were
(06:33):
carefully noted, since theymight prove a valuable link to
the men responsible for thecrime.
In the hours immediatelyfollowing the robbery, the
underworld began to feel theheat from the investigation.
Well-known Boston criminalswere picked up and questioned by
police From Boston.
(06:55):
The pressure quickly spread toother cities.
Seasoned criminals throughoutthe US found their movements
during mid-January the subjectof official questioning.
Since Brinks was situated in adensely populated tenement area,
numerous hours were spentconducting interviews to locate
(07:16):
individuals in the neighborhoodwho might possess valuable
information about the heist.
An investigation was conductedto check current and former
Brinks employees thoroughly.
The staff working in thethree-story building that housed
the Brinks offices wereinterviewed.
Inquiries were also made aboutsalesmen, messengers and other
(07:41):
individuals who had visitedBrinks and might have knowledge
about its layout and operationalprocedures.
Efforts were quickly made togather information about the
missing cash and securities.
Brinks customers were askedabout the packaging and shipping
materials they used.
Any identifying markers oncurrency and securities were
(08:04):
recorded and appropriatemeasures were taken at banking
institutions nationwide.
The FBI and local police werebaffled by the precision and
cleanliness of the crime scene,leaving few clues.
Initially there were no cluesand the public began speculating
whether the crime would ever besolved.
(08:25):
The Brinks company offered asubstantial reward for
information, but progress slowed.
The Brinks case was front pagenews Even before Brinks
Incorporated offered a $100,000reward for information leading
to the arrest and conviction ofthe individuals responsible.
(08:46):
The case had captured theattention of millions of
Americans.
Well-meaning people nationwidebegan sending the FBI tips and
theories which they hoped wouldassist in the investigation.
For example, a person inCalifornia suggested that the
loot might be concealed in theAtlantic Ocean near Boston.
(09:09):
The FBI had previously conducteda detailed survey of the Boston
waterfront.
Former inmates of prisoninstitutions reported
conversations they had overheardwhile incarcerated concerning
the robbery of Brinks.
Each of these leads werechecked out.
However, none proved fruitful.
(09:31):
Various pieces of informationwere obtained.
There were reports of a man inFayetteau, new Jersey, who had
limited resources but wasapparently spending a
significant amount of money atnightclubs, purchasing new cars
and displaying a new suddenwealth.
An extensive investigation wasconducted to determine his
(09:55):
whereabouts on the evening ofJanuary 17, 1950.
It was confirmed that he wasnot connected to the Brinks
robbery.
It was confirmed that he wasnot connected to the Brinks
robbery.
Rumors from the underworldpointed suspicion at several
criminal gangs.
Members of the Purple Gang fromthe 1930s found that there was
(10:22):
renewed interest in theiractivities.
Another old gang specializingin hijacking bootlegged whiskey
in the Boston area duringProhibition also became a
subject of inquiries.
Again, the FBI's investigationresulted merely in the
elimination of more possiblesuspects.
Many tips were received fromanonymous individuals.
(10:43):
Many tips were received fromanonymous individuals.
On the night of January 17,1952, exactly two years after
the robbery occurred, the FBI'sBoston office received an
anonymous call from anindividual who claimed he was
sending a letter identifying theBrinks robbers.
Information received from thisindividual linked nine
(11:06):
well-known criminals with thecrime.
After carefully checking, theFBI eliminated eight of the
suspects.
The ninth man had long been amain suspect Of the hundreds of
New England criminals contactedby the FBI agents in the weeks
immediately following therobbery, few were willing to be
(11:30):
interviewed.
Occasionally, an offender whowas facing prison time would say
that he had hot information,saying things like quote you get
me released and I'll solve thiscase in no time end.
Quote you get me released andI'll solve this case in no time
end quote.
According to the FBI, oneMassachusetts racketeer told the
(11:52):
agents interviewing him quoteif I knew who pulled the job, I
wouldn't be talking to you nowbecause I'd be too busy trying
to figure a way to lay my handson some of that loot.
End quote.
In their thorough approach, theFBI reached out to several
resorts across the US to gatherinformation about individuals
(12:13):
known to have unusually largeamounts of money after the
robbery.
They also looked intoracetracks and gambling
establishments in hopes oftracing some of the stolen money
.
This part of the investigationcaused concern among many
(12:34):
gamblers.
Some discontinued theiroperations, while others
strongly desired that therobbers be identified and
apprehended.
The mass of information gatheredduring the early weeks of the
investigation was continuouslysifted.
All efforts to identify therobbers through the chauffeur's
hat, the rope and the adhesivetape that had been left in the
(12:55):
brinks proved unsuccessful.
However, on February 5, 1950, apolice officer in Somerville,
massachusetts, recovered one ofthe four revolvers that the
robbers had taken.
The investigation showed thatthis gun, as well as another
rusty revolver, had been foundby a group of boys who were
(13:18):
playing on a sandbar at the edgeof the Mystic River in
Somerville just the day prior.
Shortly after these two gunswere found, one of them was
placed in a trash barrel and wastaken to the city dump.
The other gun was picked up bythe officer and identified as
(13:41):
having been taken during theBrinks robbery.
A detailed search foradditional weapons was made at
the Mystic River but yielded noresults.
Through the interviews of thosein the vicinity of the Brinks
offices on the evening ofJanuary 17, the FBI learned that
(14:03):
a 1949 Green Ford stakebodytruck with a canvas top had been
parked near the Prince Streetdoor of Brinks around the time
of the robbery.
From the size of the loot andthe number of men involved, it
was logical that the crew mighthave used truck.
This lead was pursuedintensively.
On March 4, 1950, pieces of anidentical truck were found at a
(14:27):
dump in Stoughton, massachusetts.
An acetylene torch had beenused to cut up the truck and it
appeared that a sledgehammer hadalso been used to smash many of
the heavy parts, such as themotor.
The truck pieces were concealedin fiber bags.
(14:48):
When they were found, had theground not been frozen, the
person or persons who abandonedthe bags probably would have
attempted to bury them.
The truck found at the dump hadbeen reported stolen by a Ford
dealer near Fenway Park inBoston on November 3, 1949.
All efforts to identify thepersons responsible for the
(15:12):
theft and the persons who hadcut up the truck were
unsuccessful.
The fiber bags used to concealthe pieces were identified as
bags for beef bones shipped fromSouth America to a gelatin
manufacturing company inMassachusetts.
Thorough inquiries were madeabout what happened to the bags
(15:35):
after they were received by thecompany in Massachusetts.
This phase of the investigationwas pursued exhaustively but
ultimately it provedunproductive.
Nonetheless, finding the truckparts in Stoughton proved to be
a valuable break in the case.
Two of the members in theBrinks robbery lived in the
(15:58):
Stoughton area and after thetruck parts were found,
additional suspicion was placedon these men.
As the investigation continuedand thousands of leads were
followed to dead ends, the broadfield of possible suspects
gradually began to narrow.
Among the early suspects wasAnthony Tony Pino, a man who had
(16:23):
been a prime suspect innumerous major robberies and
burglaries in Massachusetts.
Pino was known in theunderworld as an excellent
caseman, and it was said thatthe casing of the Brinks offices
had his trademark.
When questioned about hiswhereabouts on the evening of
January 17, 1950, pino had agood alibi Almost too good.
(16:48):
Pino had been at his home inthe Roxbury section of Boston
until approximately 7 pm.
Then he walked to JosephMcGinnis' nearby liquor store.
Later he engaged in aconversation with McGinnis and a
Boston police officer.
The officer verified thismeeting.
(17:09):
His alibi was strong but notconclusive.
The police officer said that hehad been talking to McGinnis
first and then Pino arrivedlater to join them.
The trip from the liquor storein Roxbury to the Brinks offices
took about 15 minutes.
So Pino could have been atMcGinnis' liquor store shortly
(17:33):
after 7 30 pm on January 17thand still have participated in
the robbery.
And what about McGinnis himself, you may be asking?
Commonly regarded as a dominantfigure in the Boston underworld
, mcginnis had previously beenconvicted of robbery and
narcotics violations.
Underworld sources describedhim as fully capable of planning
(17:57):
and executing the Brinksrobbery.
He too had left his homeshortly before 7 pm on the night
of the robbery and met theBoston police officer soon after
that.
If local criminals wereinvolved, it was difficult to
believe that McInnes was asignorant of the crime as he
claimed.
Neither Pino nor McInnes wasknown to be the type of criminal
(18:22):
who would take on such apotentially dangerous crime
without the best strong armsupport available.
Two of the prime suspects whosenerve and gun handling
experience suited them for theBrinks robbery were Joseph James
O'Keefe and Stanley AlbertGusciora.
O'keefe and Gusciora reportedlyhad worked together on several
(18:48):
occasions.
Both had served prisonsentences and were well known to
the underworld on the EastCoast.
O'keefe's reputation for nervewas legendary.
Reports had been receivedalleging that he had held up
several gamblers in the Bostonarea and had been involved in
(19:09):
shakedowns of bookies.
Like Gusquiorra, o'keefe wasknown to have associated with
Pino.
Before the Brinks robbery,boston authorities had
questioned both of thesestrong-armed suspects following
the robbery.
Neither had too convincing ofan alibi.
(19:29):
O'keefe claimed that he lefthis hotel room in Boston at
approximately 7 pm on January 17.
Following the robbery,authorities attempted
unsuccessfully to locate him atthe hotel.
His explanation he had beendrinking at a bar in Boston.
(19:50):
Guschiara also claimed to havebeen drinking that evening.
Boston Guschiara also claimedto have been drinking that
evening.
The families of O'Keefe andGuschiara resided in the area of
Stoughton, massachusetts.
When the pieces of the 49 GreenFord truck were found at the
dump in Stoughton on March 4,1950, additional focus was
(20:12):
placed on the investigationsconcerning them.
Local officers searched theirhomes but no evidence was found
linking them with the truck orthe robbery.
In April 1950, the FBI receivedinformation indicating that
part of the Brinks' loot washidden in the home of one of
(20:35):
O'Keefe's relatives in Boston.
A federal search warrant wasobtained and agents searched the
home on April 27, 1950.
Several hundred dollars werefound hidden in the house but
could not be identified as partof the money from the robbery.
On June 2, 1950, o'keefe andGuskiara left Boston by car to
(21:01):
supposedly visit the grave ofGuskiara's brother in Missouri.
They had planned a leisurelytrip with an abundance of
extracurricular activities withan abundance of extracurricular
activities.
On June 12, 1950, they wereboth arrested at Tawanda,
(21:22):
pennsylvania, and found in theirpossession were guns, clothing
and loot from burglaries in Kaneand Quartersport, pennsylvania.
Following their arrests, abondsman in Boston made regular
trips to Tawanda in anunsuccessful effort to secure
their release on bail.
On September 8, 1950, o'keefewas sentenced to three years in
(21:47):
the Bradford County Jail atTawanda and fined $3,000 for
violation of the UniformFirearms Act.
Although Guschiara wasacquitted of the charges against
him in Tawanda, he was moved toMcKean County in Pennsylvania
to stand trial for burglary,larceny and receiving stolen
(22:09):
goods.
On October 11, 1950, guschiarawas sentenced to serve 5 to 20
years in the WesternPennsylvania Penitentiary at
Pittsburgh.
Even after being convicted,o'keefe and Guschiara continued
to seek their release.
(22:29):
From 1950 to 1954, there wererumors in the underworld that
pressure was being exerted onBoston criminals to contribute
(22:50):
money for the legal fight ofthese convicted individuals
against the charges inPennsylvania.
Mcginnis, adolph Jazz Maffieand Henry Baker were frequently
mentioned in these rumors and itwas said that they had been
involved with O'Keefe.
In quote the big job end quote,even though there wasn't much
evidence or witnesses for thecourt case.
(23:11):
As the investigation continued,it became clear that O'Keefe
was a key figure in the Brinksrobbery.
Pino was also connected to therobbery and it seemed like that
O'Keefe believed Pino wasbetraying him now that O'Keefe
was in jail.
O'keefe and Guschiora had beeninterviewed multiple times about
(23:34):
the Brinks robbery butconsistently claimed complete
ignorance.
Fbi agents hoped that a dividehad formed between the two
criminals in jail inPennsylvania and the other
members living freely inMassachusetts.
Agents visited Gusquiora andO'Keefe but the two showed no
(23:56):
respect for law enforcement.
The FBI followed up rumorsabout the main suspects in the
Brinks case and identified morepotential crew members.
One of the suspects, adolphJazz Maffie, was allegedly under
pressure to contribute moneyfor the legal battle of O'Keeffe
(24:18):
and Gusquiora againstPennsylvania authorities.
When questioned about hiswhereabouts on January 17, 1950,
he couldn't provide a specificaccount of where he had been.
Henry Baker, another seasonedcriminal who was rumored to be
contributing to the PennsylvaniaDefense Fund, had spent several
(24:41):
years of his adult life inprison.
He had been released on parolefrom Norfolk Massachusetts
prison colony on August 22, 1949, colony on August 22, 1949,.
(25:03):
Only five months before therobbery, baker served two
concurrent terms of four to tenyears at the prison colony
imposed in 1944 for quotebreaking and entering in larceny
and possession of burglar tools.
End quote.
At the time of Baker's releasein 1949, pino was on hand to
drive him back to Boston.
Questioned by Boston police onthe day following the robbery,
(25:28):
baker claimed that he had eatendinner with his family on the
evening of January 17th and thenleft home at about 7 pm to walk
around the neighborhood forabout two hours.
Since he claimed to have met noone and stopped nowhere during
his walk, he could have beendoing anything on the night of
(25:49):
the crime crime Prominent amongthe other strong suspects was
Vincent James Costa, pino'sbrother-in-law.
Costa was associated with Pinoin the operation of a motor
terminal and a lottery in Boston.
He had been convicted of armedrobbery in 1940 and served
(26:17):
several months in theMassachusetts State Reformatory
and the Norfolk Massachusettsprison colony.
Costa claimed that afterworking at the motor terminal
until approximately 5 pm onJanuary 17th, he had gone home
to eat dinner.
Then, at about 7 pm, he left toreturn to the terminal and
worked until about 9 pm.
The FBI's analysis of thealibis offered by the suspects
(26:43):
showed that the hour of 7 pm onJanuary 17, 1950, was frequently
mentioned.
O'keefe had left his hotel atapproximately 7 pm.
Pino and Baker separatelydecided to go out at 7 pm.
Costa started back to the motorterminal at about 7 pm.
(27:04):
Other principal suspects couldnot provide compelling accounts
of their activities that night.
Since the robbery occurredbetween approximately 7 10 and 7
27 pm, it was probable that acrew as well-drilled as the
Brinks robbers obviously werewould have arranged to
rendezvous at a specific time.
(27:26):
By fixing this time as close aspossible to the minute at which
the robbery was to begin, therobbers would have alibis to
cover their activities up to thefinal moment.
Any doubts that the Brinksthieves had that the FBI was on
the right track in theinvestigation were dispelled
(27:48):
when the federal grand jurybegan hearings in Boston on
November 25, 1952 regarding thiscrime.
The FBI's jurisdiction toinvestigate this robbery was
based on the fact that cashchecks, postal notes and United
(28:08):
States money orders from theFederal Reserve Bank and the
Veterans Administration DistrictOffice in Boston were included
in the loop.
After nearly three years ofinvestigation, the government
hoped a witness or participantswho had remained silent for so
long might come forward beforethe grand jury.
(28:31):
Unfortunately, this hope turnedout to be in vain.
After completing its hearingson January 9, 1953, the grand
jury retired to weigh theevidence.
In a report that was releasedjust one day shy of the third
anniversary on Januaryth 1953.
(28:54):
The grand jury disclosed thatits members did not feel that
they possessed complete,positive information as to the
identity of the participants ofthe Brinks robbery because the
participants were effectivelydisguised, there was a lack of
eyewitnesses to the crime itselfand certain witnesses refused
(29:19):
to give testimony and the grandjury was unable to compel them
to do so.
Ten of the individuals whoappeared before this grand jury
were able to breathe more easilywhen they learned that no
indictments had been returned.
Following the federal grandjury hearings, the FBI's intense
(29:41):
investigation continued.
The Bureau was convinced thatit had identified the actual
robbers, but evidence andwitnesses had to be found.
While O'Keefe and Guschioraremained in jail in Pennsylvania
, pino encountered his owndifficulties.
Born in Italy in 1907, pino wasa young child when he entered
(30:07):
the United States but neverbecame a naturalized citizen.
Due to his criminal record, theImmigration and Naturalization
Service instituted proceedingsin 1941 to deport him.
This occurred while he was inthe state prison at Charlestown,
massachusetts, servingsentences for breaking and
(30:31):
entering with the intent tocommit a felony and for having
burglar tools in his possession.
That prison term, together withPino's conviction in March 1928
for the sexual abuse of a girl,for the sexual abuse of a girl,
provided the basis for thedeportation action.
(30:52):
Pino was determined to fightagainst deportation.
In the late summer of 1944, hewas released from the state
prison and was taken intocustody by the immigration
authorities.
During the prior year, however,he had filed a petition for
pardon in the hopes of removingone of the criminal convictions
(31:14):
from his record.
In September 1949, pino'sefforts to evade deportation
were successful.
The acting governor ofMassachusetts granted him a full
pardon.
The pardon meant that hisrecord no longer contained the
(31:37):
second conviction.
Therefore, the Immigration andNaturalization Service no longer
had grounds to deport him.
On January 10, 1953, followinghis appearance before the
federal grand jury in connectionwith the Brinks case, pino was
(31:58):
taken into custody, once againas a deportable alien.
The new proceedings were basedupon the fact that Pino had been
arrested in December 1948 for alarceny involving less than
$100.
He received a one-year sentencefor this offense.
However, on January 30, 1950,the sentence was revoked and the
case was placed on file.
(32:18):
Pina was released on bail onJanuary 12, 1953, pending a
deportation hearing.
1953, pending a deportationhearing Again.
He was determined to fight,arguing that his conviction for
the 1948 larceny offense was nota basis for deportation.
(32:39):
After surrendering himself inDecember 1953 in compliance with
the Immigration andNaturalization Service order, he
began an additional battle towin release from custody while
his case was being argued.
Adding to these problems wasthe constant pressure being
exerted on Pino by O'Keefe fromthe county jail in Tawanda,
(33:02):
pennsylvania.
In the deportation fight thatlasted more than two years, pino
won the final victory.
His case had gone to thehighest court.
On April 11, 1955, the SupremeCourt ruled that Pino's
conviction in 1948 for larcenythe sentence that was revoked in
(33:25):
the case placed on file, thesentence that was revoked in the
case placed on file had notquote attained such finality as
to support an order ofdeportation.
End quote.
So Pino could not be deported.
During the period in whichPino's deportation troubles were
(33:49):
mounting, o'keefe completed hissentence at Tawanda,
pennsylvania.
In early January 1954, o'keefewas released to McKean County,
pennsylvania authorities tostand trial for burglary,
larceny and receiving stolengoods.
He was also faced with adetainer filed by Massachusetts
authorities.
Filed by Massachusettsauthorities.
(34:11):
The detainer involved O'Keefe'sviolation of probation in
connection with a 1945conviction for carrying
concealed weapons.
Before his trial in McKeanCounty, he was released on a
$17,000 bond.
While on bond, he returned toBoston.
On January 23, 1954, heappeared on probation violation
(34:33):
charge in the Boston MunicipalCourt.
When this case was continueduntil April 1, 1954, o'keefe was
released on a $1,500 bond.
During his brief stay in Bostonhe was in contact with other
robbery crew members.
He needed money for his defenseagainst the charges in McKean
(34:55):
County and it was unmistakablethat he had developed a
resentful attitude towardsseveral of his close underworld
associates or World Associates.
Returning to Pennsylvania inFebruary 1954 to stand trial,
(35:16):
o'keefe was found guilty ofburglary by the state court in
McKean County on March 4, 1954.
An appeal was promptly notedand he was released on a $15,000
bond.
O'keefe immediately returned toBoston to await the appeal's
results.
Within two months of his return, another member of the crew
(35:38):
suffered a legal setback.
Jazz Maffie was convicted offederal income tax evasion and
began serving a nine-monthsentence in the federal
penitentiary at Danbury,connecticut, in June 1954.
There were rumors in theunderworld that Maffie and Henry
Baker were at the top ofO'Keefe's list because they had
(36:01):
taken a large amount of moneyfrom him.
If Baker heard these rumors, hedidn't stick around to find out
if they were true.
Shortly after O'Keefe returnedin March 1954, baker and his
wife left Boston on a vacation.
O'keefe paid his respects to theother members of the Brinks
(36:22):
crew in Boston on severaloccasions in the spring of 1954,
and it was apparent to theagents handling the
investigation that he was tryingto demand money.
He was so cold and persistentin these dealings with his
co-conspirators that the agentshoped he might be attempting to
obtain a large sum of money,perhaps his share of the Brinks
(36:46):
loot.
During these weeks O'Keeferenewed his association with a
Boston racketeer who hadactively solicited funds for the
defense of O'Keefe andGuschiora in 1950.
Soon the underworld rang withthe startling news concerning
this pair, news concerning thispair.
(37:14):
It was reported that on May 18,1954, o'keefe and his racketeer
associate took Vincent Costa toa hotel room and held him for
several thousand dollars ransom.
Allegedly other members of theBrinks crew arranged for O'Keefe
to be paid a small part of theransom he demanded, and Costa
was released on May 20, 1954.
(37:34):
Special agents laterinterviewed Costa and his wife,
pino and his wife the racketeer,and O'Keefe.
All of them denied anyknowledge of the alleged
incident.
Yet several members of theBrinks crew were visibly shaken
(37:54):
and appeared to be abnormallyworried during the latter part
of May and early June 1954.
Two weeks of relative quiet inthe crew members' lives were
shattered on June 5, 1954, whenan attempt was made on O'Keefe's
life.
The Boston underworld rumbledwith reports that an automobile
(38:19):
had pulled alongside O'Keefe'scar in Dorchester, massachusetts
, during the early morning hoursof June 5th.
Seemingly suspicious O'Keefecrouched low in the front seat
of his car as the would-beassassins fired bullets that
pierced the windshield.
A second shooting incidentoccurred on the morning of June
(38:42):
14th 1954 in Dorchester,massachusetts, when O'Keefe and
his racketeer friend paid avisit to Baker.
By this time Baker wassuffering from a bad case of
nerves.
Allegedly he pulled a gun onO'Keefe.
The two men exchanged gunfire,but none of the bullets hit
(39:03):
their target.
Baker escaped and the briefconfrontation ended.
A third attempt on O'Keefe'slife was made on June 16, 1954.
This incident also took placein Dorchester and involved the
firing of more than 30 shots.
(39:23):
O'keefe was wounded in thewrist and chest, but again he
managed to escape with his life.
Police who arrived toinvestigate found a large amount
of blood, a man's shatteredwristwatch and a .45 caliber
pistol at the scene.
Five bullets that had missedtheir mark were found in a
(39:44):
nearby building were found in anearby
building.
The following day, on June 17,1954, the Boston police arrested
Elmer Trigger Burke and chargedhim with possession of a
machine gun.
Later, this machine gun wasidentified as having been used
in the attempt on O'Keefe's life.
(40:06):
Burke, a professional killerallegedly had been hired by
underworld associates ofO'Keefe's life.
Burke, a professional killer,allegedly had been hired by
underworld associates of O'Keefeto assassinate him.
After being wounded on June16th, o'keefe disappeared On
August 1st 1954,.
He was arrested in Leicester,massachusetts, and turned over
(40:29):
to the Boston police, who heldhim for violating probation on a
gun-carrying charge.
O'keefe was sentenced on August5, 1954, to serve 27 months in
prison.
As a protective measure.
He was incarcerated in theHampton County Jail in
(40:50):
Springfield, massachusetts,rather than the Sulphur County
Jail inBoston.
O'keefe's racketeer associate,who allegedly had assisted him
in holding Costa for ransom andwas present during the shooting
between O'Keefe and Baker,disappeared on August 3, 1954.
(41:10):
The missing racketeer's car wasfound near his home.
However, his whereabouts remaina mystery to this day.
Underworld figures in Bostonhave genuinely speculated that
the racketeer was killed becauseof his association with O'Keefe
, that the racketeer was killedbecause of his association with
(41:32):
O'Keefe.
Other members of the robberycrew also were having their
troubles.
There was James IgnatiusFaraday, an armed robbery
specialist whose name had beenmentioned in the Underworld
Conversations in January 1950concerning a score on which the
crew members used binoculars towatch their intended victims
(41:53):
count large sums of money.
Faraday had been questioned onthe night of the robbery.
He claimed he had been drinkingin various taverns from
approximately 5.10 pm until 7.45pm.
Some individuals claimed tohave seen him.
The continuous investigation,however, had linked him with the
(42:17):
crew.
In 1936 and 1937, verity wasconvicted of armed robbery
violations.
He was paroled in the fall of1944 and remained on parole
through March 1954 when he wasmet with misfortune Due to
(42:38):
unsatisfactory conduct,drunkenness, refusal to seek
employment and his associationwith known criminals.
His parole was revoked and hewas returned to the
Massachusetts State Prison.
However, seven months later hewas again paroled.
Mcginnis had been arrested atthe site of a still in New
(43:02):
Hampshire in February 1954,charged with unlawful possession
of liquor distillery equipmentand violation of the internal
revenue laws.
He had many headaches duringthe time in which O'Keefe was
giving so much trouble to thecrew.
Mcginnis's trial in March 1955on the liquor charge resulted in
(43:26):
a sentence of 30 daysimprisonment and a fine of
$1,000.
In the fall of 1955, an uppercourt overruled the conviction
on the grounds that the searchand seizure of the still were
illegal.
Adolph Jazz Maffey, who hadbeen convicted of income tax
(43:47):
violations in June 1954, wasreleased from the Federal
Corrections Institution atDanbury, connecticut, on January
30, 1955.
Two days before Maffey'srelease, another strong suspect
died of natural causes died ofnatural causes.
(44:12):
There were reoccurring rumorsthat this criminal, joseph
Sylvester Banfield, had beenthere on the night of the crime.
Banfield had been a closeassociate of McGinnis for many
years.
Although he had known to carrya gun, burglary rather than
armed robbery was his criminalspecialty and his exceptional
driving skill was an invaluableasset during criminal getaways.
(44:35):
Like the others, banfield hadbeen questioned concerning his
activities on the night ofJanuary 17, 1950.
He was unable to provide aspecific account, claiming that
he became drunk on New Year'sEve and remained intoxicated
(44:56):
through the entire month ofJanuary.
One of his former girlfriends,who recalled having seen him on
the night of the robbery, statedthat he definitely was not
drunk.
Even Pino, whose deportationtroubles then were a heavy
burden, was arrested by theBoston police in August
(45:18):
1954.
On the afternoon of August 28,1954, trigger Burke escaped from
the Suffolk County Jail inBoston where he was being held
on the gun possession chargestemming from the June 16th
shooting of O'Keefe.
During the regular exercisetime, burke separated himself
(45:41):
from the other prisoners andmoved toward a heavy steel door
leading to solitary confinement.
As a guard moved to intercepthim, burke started to run, the
door opened and an armed, maskedman wearing a prison guard type
uniform commanded the guardquote back up or I'll blow your
(46:01):
brains out.
End quote.
Burke and the armed mandisappeared through the door and
fled in a vehicle parked nearby.
A vehicle identified as the carused in the escape was located
near a Boston hospital andpolice officers hid themselves
in the area.
On August 29, 1954, anautomobile that circled the
(46:26):
general vicinity of theabandoned car on five occasions
provoked the officer'ssuspicions.
This vehicle was traced throughthe motor vehicle records to
Pino.
On August 30th he was takeninto custody as a suspicious
person.
Pino admitted having been inthe area, claiming that he was
(46:48):
looking for a parking spot tovisit a relative in the hospital
.
After denying any knowledge ofTrigger Burke's escape, pino was
released.
Burke was arrested by FBIagents in Foley Beach, south
Carolina, on August 27, 1955,and he returned to New York to
(47:09):
face murder charges that wereoutstanding against him there.
He subsequently was convictedand executed, even though
members of the robbery crewspent considerable amounts of
money during 1954 defendingthemselves against legal
proceedings alone.
The year ended without thelocation of any bills
(47:32):
identifiable as part of theBrinks loop.
In addition, although violentconflict had developed within
the crew, there was still noindication that any men were
ready to talk.
However, based on the availableinformation, the FBI felt that
O'Keefe's disgust was reachingthe point where he would
(47:55):
possibly turn against hispartners.
During an interview with him inthe jail in Springfield,
massachusetts, in October 1954,special agents found that the
missing Boston racketeer wasweighing on O'Keefe's mind.
In December 1954, he indicatedto the agents that Pino could
(48:18):
look for rough treatment if hewere released again From his
cell in Springfield.
O'keefe wrote bitter letters tomembers of the Brinks crew and
persisted in his demands formoney.
The conviction for burglary inMcKean County, pennsylvania,
still hung over his head andlegal fees remained to be
(48:41):
paid.
In 1955, o'keefe carefullycontemplated his position.
1955, o'keefe carefullycontemplated his position.
He felt like he would be inprison for the rest of his life,
while his co-conspirators wouldbe enjoying luxuries.
He believed that even if hewere released, his life would
still be in danger.
In June 1954, there were threeattempts on his life and he was
(49:08):
sure that the frustratedassassins were waiting for his
return to Boston, it becameclear that O'Keefe had accepted
the fact that he would eitherspend many years in prison or
have a short life outside.
He became increasingly bittertowards his former
co-conspirators as theyrepeatedly made empty promises
(49:30):
of help and intentionallydelayed any assistance.
O'keefe began to realize thathis threats were being ignored.
He understood that while inprison he couldn't physically
harm the other Brinks crewmembers in Boston, crew members
(49:50):
in Boston.
The crew also believed that thelikelihood of him revealing
information was low, as he toowould be implicated in the
Brinks robbery along with theothers.
Two days after Christmas of1955, fbi agents paid another
visit to O'Keefe.
Paid another visit to O'Keefe.
(50:12):
After a period of hostility, hebegan to display a friendly
attitude.
When he was interviewed againon December 28, 1955.
He talked more freely and itwas obvious that the agents were
gradually winning his respectand confidence.
At 4.20 pm on January 6, 1956,o'keefe made his final decision.
(50:36):
And that, my fellow crimeconnoisseurs, is where we will
leave off.
But come back next week for thefinal part of this case,
because if it wasn't alreadywild to you, it's going to get
even more insane.
Thank you for listening andfollowing along.
If you've enjoyed the podcast.
(50:56):
Please subscribe, leave areview and share it with your
loved ones.
You can find Crime Connoisseurswherever you listen to your
podcasts Crime Connoisseurswherever you listen to your
podcasts, and you can follow uson social media at Crime
Connoisseurs.
In the meantime, keep it classy, connoisseurs, and I'll catch
(51:17):
you on the next case.
We'll be right back.
(51:54):
I'm out.
Welcome back crime connoisseurs to another
thrilling case where we diveinto some of the most notorious
crimes and unsolved mysteries inhistory.
Today we're going back to 1950,a year marked by what was
dubbed the crime of the centuryin Boston, massachusetts.
This audacious heist was notonly meticulously planned, but
(00:24):
also executed with militaryprecision.
Join me as we unravel thedetails of this infamous crime,
the characters involved and theaftermath that shocked the
nation.
This is the case of the GreatBrinks robbery.
It was a cold, crisp evening onJanuary 17, 1950.
(01:21):
The streets of Boston wereblanketed in snow as the
bustling city began to wind downfor the night, but in the
shadows, a group of men weregearing up for what would become
one of the most infamous heistsin American history.
The Brinks Armored Car Depot,located at 165 Prince Street in
(01:44):
the north end of Boston, was afortress of security boasting
thick walls, steel doors andstate-of-the-art alarm systems.
This made it a prime target fora crew of seasoned criminals
who had been meticulouslyplanning the heist for over two
years.
On the night of the robbery,the crew entered the Brinks
(02:08):
Depot shortly after 7 pm,donning navy peacoats,
chauffeur's caps, rubberHalloween masks and gloves to
disguise themselves and avoidleaving fingerprints.
With precision and coordination, they used duplicate key to
gain access to the depot.
(02:28):
Once inside, they overpoweredand bound five employees at
gunpoint.
They moved swiftly and silently, overpowering the five
employees who were occupiedpreparing money for shipment.
The crew tied up the employees,taped their mouths shut and
(02:49):
then proceeded to fill theirloot bags with cash, coins,
checks and money orders.
The robbers did little talking.
They moved with a precisionthat suggested the crime had
been carefully planned andrehearsed in the preceding
months.
Somehow the crew had opened atleast three, possibly four,
(03:11):
locked doors to gain entrance tothe second floor of Brinks,
where the five employees werecompleting their nightly duties
of checking and storing themoney collected from Brinks
customers.
That day, all five employees hadbeen forced at gunpoint to lie
face down on the floor.
Their hands were tied behindtheir backs and adhesive tape
(03:34):
was placed over their mouths.
During this time, one of theemployees had lost his glasses.
They later could not be foundon the Brink' premises.
A buzzer sounded as the lootwas being placed in bags and
stacked between the second andthird doors leading to the
Prince Street entrance.
(03:54):
The robbers removed theadhesive tape from the mouth of
one of the employees and learnedthat the buzzer signified that
someone wanted to enter thevault area.
The person ringing the buzzerwas a garage attendant.
Two of the crew members movedtoward the door to capture him,
but seeing the garage attendantwalk away, seemingly unaware of
(04:18):
the robbery was being committed,they did not pursue him.
The entire operation tookapproximately 30 minutes.
To further cover their tracks,the crew carefully wiped down
the premises to remove anyfingerprints and left with
minimal trace evidence.
The crew made off with $2.7million in total, a staggering
(04:44):
sum in 1950, equivalent tonearly $30 million today.
The haul included $1.2 millionin cash and the rest in
securities.
They filled 14 canvas bags withcash, coins, checks and money
orders for a total weight ofmore than half a ton, making
(05:07):
this the largest robbery in UShistory.
At the time, as the robberssped from the scene, a Brinks
employee called the BostonPolice Department.
Minutes later, police arrivedat Brinks Building and special
agents with the FBI quicklyjoined in the investigation.
(05:29):
At the beginning of theinvestigation, the investigators
had very few facts.
From the interviews with thefive employees whom the
criminals had confronted, it waslearned that between five and
seven robbers had entered thebuilding.
All of them wore navy-typepeacoats, gloves and chauffeur's
caps.
Each robber's face wascompletely concealed behind a
(05:53):
Halloween-type mask.
According to the FBI, one ofthe robbers wore crepe-soled
shoes to muffle their footstepsand the others wore rubbers.
In addition to the generaldescriptions from the Brinks
employees, the investigatorsobtained several pieces of
physical evidence.
(06:13):
The rope and adhesive tape usedto bind and gag the employees,
and a chauffeur's cap that oneof the robbers had worn was left
at the crime scene.
The FBI also learned that fourrevolvers had been taken by the
group.
The descriptions and serialnumbers of the guns were
(06:33):
carefully noted, since theymight prove a valuable link to
the men responsible for thecrime.
In the hours immediatelyfollowing the robbery, the
underworld began to feel theheat from the investigation.
Well-known Boston criminalswere picked up and questioned by
police From Boston.
(06:55):
The pressure quickly spread toother cities.
Seasoned criminals throughoutthe US found their movements
during mid-January the subjectof official questioning.
Since Brinks was situated in adensely populated tenement area,
numerous hours were spentconducting interviews to locate
(07:16):
individuals in the neighborhoodwho might possess valuable
information about the heist.
An investigation was conductedto check current and former
Brinks employees thoroughly.
The staff working in thethree-story building that housed
the Brinks offices wereinterviewed.
Inquiries were also made aboutsalesmen, messengers and other
(07:41):
individuals who had visitedBrinks and might have knowledge
about its layout and operationalprocedures.
Efforts were quickly made togather information about the
missing cash and securities.
Brinks customers were askedabout the packaging and shipping
materials they used.
Any identifying markers oncurrency and securities were
(08:04):
recorded and appropriatemeasures were taken at banking
institutions nationwide.
The FBI and local police werebaffled by the precision and
cleanliness of the crime scene,leaving few clues.
Initially there were no cluesand the public began speculating
whether the crime would ever besolved.
(08:25):
The Brinks company offered asubstantial reward for
information, but progress slowed.
The Brinks case was front pagenews Even before Brinks
Incorporated offered a $100,000reward for information leading
to the arrest and conviction ofthe individuals responsible.
(08:46):
The case had captured theattention of millions of
Americans.
Well-meaning people nationwidebegan sending the FBI tips and
theories which they hoped wouldassist in the investigation.
For example, a person inCalifornia suggested that the
loot might be concealed in theAtlantic Ocean near Boston.
(09:09):
The FBI had previously conducteda detailed survey of the Boston
waterfront.
Former inmates of prisoninstitutions reported
conversations they had overheardwhile incarcerated concerning
the robbery of Brinks.
Each of these leads werechecked out.
However, none proved fruitful.
(09:31):
Various pieces of informationwere obtained.
There were reports of a man inFayetteau, new Jersey, who had
limited resources but wasapparently spending a
significant amount of money atnightclubs, purchasing new cars
and displaying a new suddenwealth.
An extensive investigation wasconducted to determine his
(09:55):
whereabouts on the evening ofJanuary 17, 1950.
It was confirmed that he wasnot connected to the Brinks
robbery.
It was confirmed that he wasnot connected to the Brinks
robbery.
Rumors from the underworldpointed suspicion at several
criminal gangs.
Members of the Purple Gang fromthe 1930s found that there was
(10:22):
renewed interest in theiractivities.
Another old gang specializingin hijacking bootlegged whiskey
in the Boston area duringProhibition also became a
subject of inquiries.
Again, the FBI's investigationresulted merely in the
elimination of more possiblesuspects.
Many tips were received fromanonymous individuals.
(10:43):
Many tips were received fromanonymous individuals.
On the night of January 17,1952, exactly two years after
the robbery occurred, the FBI'sBoston office received an
anonymous call from anindividual who claimed he was
sending a letter identifying theBrinks robbers.
Information received from thisindividual linked nine
(11:06):
well-known criminals with thecrime.
After carefully checking, theFBI eliminated eight of the
suspects.
The ninth man had long been amain suspect Of the hundreds of
New England criminals contactedby the FBI agents in the weeks
immediately following therobbery, few were willing to be
(11:30):
interviewed.
Occasionally, an offender whowas facing prison time would say
that he had hot information,saying things like quote you get
me released and I'll solve thiscase in no time end.
Quote you get me released andI'll solve this case in no time
end quote.
According to the FBI, oneMassachusetts racketeer told the
(11:52):
agents interviewing him quoteif I knew who pulled the job, I
wouldn't be talking to you nowbecause I'd be too busy trying
to figure a way to lay my handson some of that loot.
End quote.
In their thorough approach, theFBI reached out to several
resorts across the US to gatherinformation about individuals
(12:13):
known to have unusually largeamounts of money after the
robbery.
They also looked intoracetracks and gambling
establishments in hopes oftracing some of the stolen money
.
This part of the investigationcaused concern among many
(12:34):
gamblers.
Some discontinued theiroperations, while others
strongly desired that therobbers be identified and
apprehended.
The mass of information gatheredduring the early weeks of the
investigation was continuouslysifted.
All efforts to identify therobbers through the chauffeur's
hat, the rope and the adhesivetape that had been left in the
(12:55):
brinks proved unsuccessful.
However, on February 5, 1950, apolice officer in Somerville,
massachusetts, recovered one ofthe four revolvers that the
robbers had taken.
The investigation showed thatthis gun, as well as another
rusty revolver, had been foundby a group of boys who were
(13:18):
playing on a sandbar at the edgeof the Mystic River in
Somerville just the day prior.
Shortly after these two gunswere found, one of them was
placed in a trash barrel and wastaken to the city dump.
The other gun was picked up bythe officer and identified as
(13:41):
having been taken during theBrinks robbery.
A detailed search foradditional weapons was made at
the Mystic River but yielded noresults.
Through the interviews of thosein the vicinity of the Brinks
offices on the evening ofJanuary 17, the FBI learned that
(14:03):
a 1949 Green Ford stakebodytruck with a canvas top had been
parked near the Prince Streetdoor of Brinks around the time
of the robbery.
From the size of the loot andthe number of men involved, it
was logical that the crew mighthave used truck.
This lead was pursuedintensively.
On March 4, 1950, pieces of anidentical truck were found at a
(14:27):
dump in Stoughton, massachusetts.
An acetylene torch had beenused to cut up the truck and it
appeared that a sledgehammer hadalso been used to smash many of
the heavy parts, such as themotor.
The truck pieces were concealedin fiber bags.
(14:48):
When they were found, had theground not been frozen, the
person or persons who abandonedthe bags probably would have
attempted to bury them.
The truck found at the dump hadbeen reported stolen by a Ford
dealer near Fenway Park inBoston on November 3, 1949.
All efforts to identify thepersons responsible for the
(15:12):
theft and the persons who hadcut up the truck were
unsuccessful.
The fiber bags used to concealthe pieces were identified as
bags for beef bones shipped fromSouth America to a gelatin
manufacturing company inMassachusetts.
Thorough inquiries were madeabout what happened to the bags
(15:35):
after they were received by thecompany in Massachusetts.
This phase of the investigationwas pursued exhaustively but
ultimately it provedunproductive.
Nonetheless, finding the truckparts in Stoughton proved to be
a valuable break in the case.
Two of the members in theBrinks robbery lived in the
(15:58):
Stoughton area and after thetruck parts were found,
additional suspicion was placedon these men.
As the investigation continuedand thousands of leads were
followed to dead ends, the broadfield of possible suspects
gradually began to narrow.
Among the early suspects wasAnthony Tony Pino, a man who had
(16:23):
been a prime suspect innumerous major robberies and
burglaries in Massachusetts.
Pino was known in theunderworld as an excellent
caseman, and it was said thatthe casing of the Brinks offices
had his trademark.
When questioned about hiswhereabouts on the evening of
January 17, 1950, pino had agood alibi Almost too good.
(16:48):
Pino had been at his home inthe Roxbury section of Boston
until approximately 7 pm.
Then he walked to JosephMcGinnis' nearby liquor store.
Later he engaged in aconversation with McGinnis and a
Boston police officer.
The officer verified thismeeting.
(17:09):
His alibi was strong but notconclusive.
The police officer said that hehad been talking to McGinnis
first and then Pino arrivedlater to join them.
The trip from the liquor storein Roxbury to the Brinks offices
took about 15 minutes.
So Pino could have been atMcGinnis' liquor store shortly
(17:33):
after 7 30 pm on January 17thand still have participated in
the robbery.
And what about McGinnis himself, you may be asking?
Commonly regarded as a dominantfigure in the Boston underworld
, mcginnis had previously beenconvicted of robbery and
narcotics violations.
Underworld sources describedhim as fully capable of planning
(17:57):
and executing the Brinksrobbery.
He too had left his homeshortly before 7 pm on the night
of the robbery and met theBoston police officer soon after
that.
If local criminals wereinvolved, it was difficult to
believe that McInnes was asignorant of the crime as he
claimed.
Neither Pino nor McInnes wasknown to be the type of criminal
(18:22):
who would take on such apotentially dangerous crime
without the best strong armsupport available.
Two of the prime suspects whosenerve and gun handling
experience suited them for theBrinks robbery were Joseph James
O'Keefe and Stanley AlbertGusciora.
O'keefe and Gusciora reportedlyhad worked together on several
(18:48):
occasions.
Both had served prisonsentences and were well known to
the underworld on the EastCoast.
O'keefe's reputation for nervewas legendary.
Reports had been receivedalleging that he had held up
several gamblers in the Bostonarea and had been involved in
(19:09):
shakedowns of bookies.
Like Gusquiorra, o'keefe wasknown to have associated with
Pino.
Before the Brinks robbery,boston authorities had
questioned both of thesestrong-armed suspects following
the robbery.
Neither had too convincing ofan alibi.
(19:29):
O'keefe claimed that he lefthis hotel room in Boston at
approximately 7 pm on January 17.
Following the robbery,authorities attempted
unsuccessfully to locate him atthe hotel.
His explanation he had beendrinking at a bar in Boston.
(19:50):
Guschiara also claimed to havebeen drinking that evening.
Boston Guschiara also claimedto have been drinking that
evening.
The families of O'Keefe andGuschiara resided in the area of
Stoughton, massachusetts.
When the pieces of the 49 GreenFord truck were found at the
dump in Stoughton on March 4,1950, additional focus was
(20:12):
placed on the investigationsconcerning them.
Local officers searched theirhomes but no evidence was found
linking them with the truck orthe robbery.
In April 1950, the FBI receivedinformation indicating that
part of the Brinks' loot washidden in the home of one of
(20:35):
O'Keefe's relatives in Boston.
A federal search warrant wasobtained and agents searched the
home on April 27, 1950.
Several hundred dollars werefound hidden in the house but
could not be identified as partof the money from the robbery.
On June 2, 1950, o'keefe andGuskiara left Boston by car to
(21:01):
supposedly visit the grave ofGuskiara's brother in Missouri.
They had planned a leisurelytrip with an abundance of
extracurricular activities withan abundance of extracurricular
activities.
On June 12, 1950, they wereboth arrested at Tawanda,
(21:22):
pennsylvania, and found in theirpossession were guns, clothing
and loot from burglaries in Kaneand Quartersport, pennsylvania.
Following their arrests, abondsman in Boston made regular
trips to Tawanda in anunsuccessful effort to secure
their release on bail.
On September 8, 1950, o'keefewas sentenced to three years in
(21:47):
the Bradford County Jail atTawanda and fined $3,000 for
violation of the UniformFirearms Act.
Although Guschiara wasacquitted of the charges against
him in Tawanda, he was moved toMcKean County in Pennsylvania
to stand trial for burglary,larceny and receiving stolen
(22:09):
goods.
On October 11, 1950, guschiarawas sentenced to serve 5 to 20
years in the WesternPennsylvania Penitentiary at
Pittsburgh.
Even after being convicted,o'keefe and Guschiara continued
to seek their release.
(22:29):
From 1950 to 1954, there wererumors in the underworld that
pressure was being exerted onBoston criminals to contribute
(22:50):
money for the legal fight ofthese convicted individuals
against the charges inPennsylvania.
Mcginnis, adolph Jazz Maffieand Henry Baker were frequently
mentioned in these rumors and itwas said that they had been
involved with O'Keefe.
In quote the big job end quote,even though there wasn't much
evidence or witnesses for thecourt case.
(23:11):
As the investigation continued,it became clear that O'Keefe
was a key figure in the Brinksrobbery.
Pino was also connected to therobbery and it seemed like that
O'Keefe believed Pino wasbetraying him now that O'Keefe
was in jail.
O'keefe and Guschiora had beeninterviewed multiple times about
(23:34):
the Brinks robbery butconsistently claimed complete
ignorance.
Fbi agents hoped that a dividehad formed between the two
criminals in jail inPennsylvania and the other
members living freely inMassachusetts.
Agents visited Gusquiora andO'Keefe but the two showed no
(23:56):
respect for law enforcement.
The FBI followed up rumorsabout the main suspects in the
Brinks case and identified morepotential crew members.
One of the suspects, adolphJazz Maffie, was allegedly under
pressure to contribute moneyfor the legal battle of O'Keeffe
(24:18):
and Gusquiora againstPennsylvania authorities.
When questioned about hiswhereabouts on January 17, 1950,
he couldn't provide a specificaccount of where he had been.
Henry Baker, another seasonedcriminal who was rumored to be
contributing to the PennsylvaniaDefense Fund, had spent several
(24:41):
years of his adult life inprison.
He had been released on parolefrom Norfolk Massachusetts
prison colony on August 22, 1949, colony on August 22, 1949,.
(25:03):
Only five months before therobbery, baker served two
concurrent terms of four to tenyears at the prison colony
imposed in 1944 for quotebreaking and entering in larceny
and possession of burglar tools.
End quote.
At the time of Baker's releasein 1949, pino was on hand to
drive him back to Boston.
Questioned by Boston police onthe day following the robbery,
(25:28):
baker claimed that he had eatendinner with his family on the
evening of January 17th and thenleft home at about 7 pm to walk
around the neighborhood forabout two hours.
Since he claimed to have met noone and stopped nowhere during
his walk, he could have beendoing anything on the night of
(25:49):
the crime crime Prominent amongthe other strong suspects was
Vincent James Costa, pino'sbrother-in-law.
Costa was associated with Pinoin the operation of a motor
terminal and a lottery in Boston.
He had been convicted of armedrobbery in 1940 and served
(26:17):
several months in theMassachusetts State Reformatory
and the Norfolk Massachusettsprison colony.
Costa claimed that afterworking at the motor terminal
until approximately 5 pm onJanuary 17th, he had gone home
to eat dinner.
Then, at about 7 pm, he left toreturn to the terminal and
worked until about 9 pm.
The FBI's analysis of thealibis offered by the suspects
(26:43):
showed that the hour of 7 pm onJanuary 17, 1950, was frequently
mentioned.
O'keefe had left his hotel atapproximately 7 pm.
Pino and Baker separatelydecided to go out at 7 pm.
Costa started back to the motorterminal at about 7 pm.
(27:04):
Other principal suspects couldnot provide compelling accounts
of their activities that night.
Since the robbery occurredbetween approximately 7 10 and 7
27 pm, it was probable that acrew as well-drilled as the
Brinks robbers obviously werewould have arranged to
rendezvous at a specific time.
(27:26):
By fixing this time as close aspossible to the minute at which
the robbery was to begin, therobbers would have alibis to
cover their activities up to thefinal moment.
Any doubts that the Brinksthieves had that the FBI was on
the right track in theinvestigation were dispelled
(27:48):
when the federal grand jurybegan hearings in Boston on
November 25, 1952 regarding thiscrime.
The FBI's jurisdiction toinvestigate this robbery was
based on the fact that cashchecks, postal notes and United
(28:08):
States money orders from theFederal Reserve Bank and the
Veterans Administration DistrictOffice in Boston were included
in the loop.
After nearly three years ofinvestigation, the government
hoped a witness or participantswho had remained silent for so
long might come forward beforethe grand jury.
(28:31):
Unfortunately, this hope turnedout to be in vain.
After completing its hearingson January 9, 1953, the grand
jury retired to weigh theevidence.
In a report that was releasedjust one day shy of the third
anniversary on Januaryth 1953.
(28:54):
The grand jury disclosed thatits members did not feel that
they possessed complete,positive information as to the
identity of the participants ofthe Brinks robbery because the
participants were effectivelydisguised, there was a lack of
eyewitnesses to the crime itselfand certain witnesses refused
(29:19):
to give testimony and the grandjury was unable to compel them
to do so.
Ten of the individuals whoappeared before this grand jury
were able to breathe more easilywhen they learned that no
indictments had been returned.
Following the federal grandjury hearings, the FBI's intense
(29:41):
investigation continued.
The Bureau was convinced thatit had identified the actual
robbers, but evidence andwitnesses had to be found.
While O'Keefe and Guschioraremained in jail in Pennsylvania
, pino encountered his owndifficulties.
Born in Italy in 1907, pino wasa young child when he entered
(30:07):
the United States but neverbecame a naturalized citizen.
Due to his criminal record, theImmigration and Naturalization
Service instituted proceedingsin 1941 to deport him.
This occurred while he was inthe state prison at Charlestown,
massachusetts, servingsentences for breaking and
(30:31):
entering with the intent tocommit a felony and for having
burglar tools in his possession.
That prison term, together withPino's conviction in March 1928
for the sexual abuse of a girl,for the sexual abuse of a girl,
provided the basis for thedeportation action.
(30:52):
Pino was determined to fightagainst deportation.
In the late summer of 1944, hewas released from the state
prison and was taken intocustody by the immigration
authorities.
During the prior year, however,he had filed a petition for
pardon in the hopes of removingone of the criminal convictions
(31:14):
from his record.
In September 1949, pino'sefforts to evade deportation
were successful.
The acting governor ofMassachusetts granted him a full
pardon.
The pardon meant that hisrecord no longer contained the
(31:37):
second conviction.
Therefore, the Immigration andNaturalization Service no longer
had grounds to deport him.
On January 10, 1953, followinghis appearance before the
federal grand jury in connectionwith the Brinks case, pino was
(31:58):
taken into custody, once againas a deportable alien.
The new proceedings were basedupon the fact that Pino had been
arrested in December 1948 for alarceny involving less than
$100.
He received a one-year sentencefor this offense.
However, on January 30, 1950,the sentence was revoked and the
case was placed on file.
(32:18):
Pina was released on bail onJanuary 12, 1953, pending a
deportation hearing.
1953, pending a deportationhearing Again.
He was determined to fight,arguing that his conviction for
the 1948 larceny offense was nota basis for deportation.
(32:39):
After surrendering himself inDecember 1953 in compliance with
the Immigration andNaturalization Service order, he
began an additional battle towin release from custody while
his case was being argued.
Adding to these problems wasthe constant pressure being
exerted on Pino by O'Keefe fromthe county jail in Tawanda,
(33:02):
pennsylvania.
In the deportation fight thatlasted more than two years, pino
won the final victory.
His case had gone to thehighest court.
On April 11, 1955, the SupremeCourt ruled that Pino's
conviction in 1948 for larcenythe sentence that was revoked in
(33:25):
the case placed on file, thesentence that was revoked in the
case placed on file had notquote attained such finality as
to support an order ofdeportation.
End quote.
So Pino could not be deported.
During the period in whichPino's deportation troubles were
(33:49):
mounting, o'keefe completed hissentence at Tawanda,
pennsylvania.
In early January 1954, o'keefewas released to McKean County,
pennsylvania authorities tostand trial for burglary,
larceny and receiving stolengoods.
He was also faced with adetainer filed by Massachusetts
authorities.
Filed by Massachusettsauthorities.
(34:11):
The detainer involved O'Keefe'sviolation of probation in
connection with a 1945conviction for carrying
concealed weapons.
Before his trial in McKeanCounty, he was released on a
$17,000 bond.
While on bond, he returned toBoston.
On January 23, 1954, heappeared on probation violation
(34:33):
charge in the Boston MunicipalCourt.
When this case was continueduntil April 1, 1954, o'keefe was
released on a $1,500 bond.
During his brief stay in Bostonhe was in contact with other
robbery crew members.
He needed money for his defenseagainst the charges in McKean
(34:55):
County and it was unmistakablethat he had developed a
resentful attitude towardsseveral of his close underworld
associates or World Associates.
Returning to Pennsylvania inFebruary 1954 to stand trial,
(35:16):
o'keefe was found guilty ofburglary by the state court in
McKean County on March 4, 1954.
An appeal was promptly notedand he was released on a $15,000
bond.
O'keefe immediately returned toBoston to await the appeal's
results.
Within two months of his return, another member of the crew
(35:38):
suffered a legal setback.
Jazz Maffie was convicted offederal income tax evasion and
began serving a nine-monthsentence in the federal
penitentiary at Danbury,connecticut, in June 1954.
There were rumors in theunderworld that Maffie and Henry
Baker were at the top ofO'Keefe's list because they had
(36:01):
taken a large amount of moneyfrom him.
If Baker heard these rumors, hedidn't stick around to find out
if they were true.
Shortly after O'Keefe returnedin March 1954, baker and his
wife left Boston on a vacation.
O'keefe paid his respects to theother members of the Brinks
(36:22):
crew in Boston on severaloccasions in the spring of 1954,
and it was apparent to theagents handling the
investigation that he was tryingto demand money.
He was so cold and persistentin these dealings with his
co-conspirators that the agentshoped he might be attempting to
obtain a large sum of money,perhaps his share of the Brinks
(36:46):
loot.
During these weeks O'Keeferenewed his association with a
Boston racketeer who hadactively solicited funds for the
defense of O'Keefe andGuschiora in 1950.
Soon the underworld rang withthe startling news concerning
this pair, news concerning thispair.
(37:14):
It was reported that on May 18,1954, o'keefe and his racketeer
associate took Vincent Costa toa hotel room and held him for
several thousand dollars ransom.
Allegedly other members of theBrinks crew arranged for O'Keefe
to be paid a small part of theransom he demanded, and Costa
was released on May 20, 1954.
(37:34):
Special agents laterinterviewed Costa and his wife,
pino and his wife the racketeer,and O'Keefe.
All of them denied anyknowledge of the alleged
incident.
Yet several members of theBrinks crew were visibly shaken
(37:54):
and appeared to be abnormallyworried during the latter part
of May and early June 1954.
Two weeks of relative quiet inthe crew members' lives were
shattered on June 5, 1954, whenan attempt was made on O'Keefe's
life.
The Boston underworld rumbledwith reports that an automobile
(38:19):
had pulled alongside O'Keefe'scar in Dorchester, massachusetts
, during the early morning hoursof June 5th.
Seemingly suspicious O'Keefecrouched low in the front seat
of his car as the would-beassassins fired bullets that
pierced the windshield.
A second shooting incidentoccurred on the morning of June
(38:42):
14th 1954 in Dorchester,massachusetts, when O'Keefe and
his racketeer friend paid avisit to Baker.
By this time Baker wassuffering from a bad case of
nerves.
Allegedly he pulled a gun onO'Keefe.
The two men exchanged gunfire,but none of the bullets hit
(39:03):
their target.
Baker escaped and the briefconfrontation ended.
A third attempt on O'Keefe'slife was made on June 16, 1954.
This incident also took placein Dorchester and involved the
firing of more than 30 shots.
(39:23):
O'keefe was wounded in thewrist and chest, but again he
managed to escape with his life.
Police who arrived toinvestigate found a large amount
of blood, a man's shatteredwristwatch and a .45 caliber
pistol at the scene.
Five bullets that had missedtheir mark were found in a
(39:44):
nearby building were found in anearby
building.
The following day, on June 17,1954, the Boston police arrested
Elmer Trigger Burke and chargedhim with possession of a
machine gun.
Later, this machine gun wasidentified as having been used
in the attempt on O'Keefe's life.
(40:06):
Burke, a professional killerallegedly had been hired by
underworld associates ofO'Keefe's life.
Burke, a professional killer,allegedly had been hired by
underworld associates of O'Keefeto assassinate him.
After being wounded on June16th, o'keefe disappeared On
August 1st 1954,.
He was arrested in Leicester,massachusetts, and turned over
(40:29):
to the Boston police, who heldhim for violating probation on a
gun-carrying charge.
O'keefe was sentenced on August5, 1954, to serve 27 months in
prison.
As a protective measure.
He was incarcerated in theHampton County Jail in
(40:50):
Springfield, massachusetts,rather than the Sulphur County
Jail inBoston.
O'keefe's racketeer associate,who allegedly had assisted him
in holding Costa for ransom andwas present during the shooting
between O'Keefe and Baker,disappeared on August 3, 1954.
(41:10):
The missing racketeer's car wasfound near his home.
However, his whereabouts remaina mystery to this day.
Underworld figures in Bostonhave genuinely speculated that
the racketeer was killed becauseof his association with O'Keefe
, that the racketeer was killedbecause of his association with
(41:32):
O'Keefe.
Other members of the robberycrew also were having their
troubles.
There was James IgnatiusFaraday, an armed robbery
specialist whose name had beenmentioned in the Underworld
Conversations in January 1950concerning a score on which the
crew members used binoculars towatch their intended victims
(41:53):
count large sums of money.
Faraday had been questioned onthe night of the robbery.
He claimed he had been drinkingin various taverns from
approximately 5.10 pm until 7.45pm.
Some individuals claimed tohave seen him.
The continuous investigation,however, had linked him with the
(42:17):
crew.
In 1936 and 1937, verity wasconvicted of armed robbery
violations.
He was paroled in the fall of1944 and remained on parole
through March 1954 when he wasmet with misfortune Due to
(42:38):
unsatisfactory conduct,drunkenness, refusal to seek
employment and his associationwith known criminals.
His parole was revoked and hewas returned to the
Massachusetts State Prison.
However, seven months later hewas again paroled.
Mcginnis had been arrested atthe site of a still in New
(43:02):
Hampshire in February 1954,charged with unlawful possession
of liquor distillery equipmentand violation of the internal
revenue laws.
He had many headaches duringthe time in which O'Keefe was
giving so much trouble to thecrew.
Mcginnis's trial in March 1955on the liquor charge resulted in
(43:26):
a sentence of 30 daysimprisonment and a fine of
$1,000.
In the fall of 1955, an uppercourt overruled the conviction
on the grounds that the searchand seizure of the still were
illegal.
Adolph Jazz Maffey, who hadbeen convicted of income tax
(43:47):
violations in June 1954, wasreleased from the Federal
Corrections Institution atDanbury, connecticut, on January
30, 1955.
Two days before Maffey'srelease, another strong suspect
died of natural causes died ofnatural causes.
(44:12):
There were reoccurring rumorsthat this criminal, joseph
Sylvester Banfield, had beenthere on the night of the crime.
Banfield had been a closeassociate of McGinnis for many
years.
Although he had known to carrya gun, burglary rather than
armed robbery was his criminalspecialty and his exceptional
driving skill was an invaluableasset during criminal getaways.
(44:35):
Like the others, banfield hadbeen questioned concerning his
activities on the night ofJanuary 17, 1950.
He was unable to provide aspecific account, claiming that
he became drunk on New Year'sEve and remained intoxicated
(44:56):
through the entire month ofJanuary.
One of his former girlfriends,who recalled having seen him on
the night of the robbery, statedthat he definitely was not
drunk.
Even Pino, whose deportationtroubles then were a heavy
burden, was arrested by theBoston police in August
(45:18):
1954.
On the afternoon of August 28,1954, trigger Burke escaped from
the Suffolk County Jail inBoston where he was being held
on the gun possession chargestemming from the June 16th
shooting of O'Keefe.
During the regular exercisetime, burke separated himself
(45:41):
from the other prisoners andmoved toward a heavy steel door
leading to solitary confinement.
As a guard moved to intercepthim, burke started to run, the
door opened and an armed, maskedman wearing a prison guard type
uniform commanded the guardquote back up or I'll blow your
(46:01):
brains out.
End quote.
Burke and the armed mandisappeared through the door and
fled in a vehicle parked nearby.
A vehicle identified as the carused in the escape was located
near a Boston hospital andpolice officers hid themselves
in the area.
On August 29, 1954, anautomobile that circled the
(46:26):
general vicinity of theabandoned car on five occasions
provoked the officer'ssuspicions.
This vehicle was traced throughthe motor vehicle records to
Pino.
On August 30th he was takeninto custody as a suspicious
person.
Pino admitted having been inthe area, claiming that he was
(46:48):
looking for a parking spot tovisit a relative in the hospital
.
After denying any knowledge ofTrigger Burke's escape, pino was
released.
Burke was arrested by FBIagents in Foley Beach, south
Carolina, on August 27, 1955,and he returned to New York to
(47:09):
face murder charges that wereoutstanding against him there.
He subsequently was convictedand executed, even though
members of the robbery crewspent considerable amounts of
money during 1954 defendingthemselves against legal
proceedings alone.
The year ended without thelocation of any bills
(47:32):
identifiable as part of theBrinks loop.
In addition, although violentconflict had developed within
the crew, there was still noindication that any men were
ready to talk.
However, based on the availableinformation, the FBI felt that
O'Keefe's disgust was reachingthe point where he would
(47:55):
possibly turn against hispartners.
During an interview with him inthe jail in Springfield,
massachusetts, in October 1954,special agents found that the
missing Boston racketeer wasweighing on O'Keefe's mind.
In December 1954, he indicatedto the agents that Pino could
(48:18):
look for rough treatment if hewere released again From his
cell in Springfield.
O'keefe wrote bitter letters tomembers of the Brinks crew and
persisted in his demands formoney.
The conviction for burglary inMcKean County, pennsylvania,
still hung over his head andlegal fees remained to be
(48:41):
paid.
In 1955, o'keefe carefullycontemplated his position.
1955, o'keefe carefullycontemplated his position.
He felt like he would be inprison for the rest of his life,
while his co-conspirators wouldbe enjoying luxuries.
He believed that even if hewere released, his life would
still be in danger.
In June 1954, there were threeattempts on his life and he was
(49:08):
sure that the frustratedassassins were waiting for his
return to Boston, it becameclear that O'Keefe had accepted
the fact that he would eitherspend many years in prison or
have a short life outside.
He became increasingly bittertowards his former
co-conspirators as theyrepeatedly made empty promises
(49:30):
of help and intentionallydelayed any assistance.
O'keefe began to realize thathis threats were being ignored.
He understood that while inprison he couldn't physically
harm the other Brinks crewmembers in Boston, crew members
(49:50):
in Boston.
The crew also believed that thelikelihood of him revealing
information was low, as he toowould be implicated in the
Brinks robbery along with theothers.
Two days after Christmas of1955, fbi agents paid another
visit to O'Keefe.
Paid another visit to O'Keefe.
(50:12):
After a period of hostility, hebegan to display a friendly
attitude.
When he was interviewed againon December 28, 1955.
He talked more freely and itwas obvious that the agents were
gradually winning his respectand confidence.
At 4.20 pm on January 6, 1956,o'keefe made his final decision.
(50:36):
And that, my fellow crimeconnoisseurs, is where we will
leave off.
But come back next week for thefinal part of this case,
because if it wasn't alreadywild to you, it's going to get
even more insane.
Thank you for listening andfollowing along.
If you've enjoyed the podcast.
(50:56):
Please subscribe, leave areview and share it with your
loved ones.
You can find Crime Connoisseurswherever you listen to your
podcasts Crime Connoisseurswherever you listen to your
podcasts, and you can follow uson social media at Crime
Connoisseurs.
In the meantime, keep it classy, connoisseurs, and I'll catch
(51:17):
you on the next case.
We'll be right back.
(51:54):
I'm out.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com